4 ms·
Whilst a good idea, no politician is going to try and do it under the fear of reigniting the Brexit argument which ends up dominating politics in the country.
by ChocolateGod 2y ago
Whilst a good idea, no politician is going to try and do it under the fear of reigniting the Brexit argument which ends up dominating politics in the country.
- microtonal 2y agoYeah, that's why I don't think it's in the cards yet. On the other hand, things are very fluid now. Things that were unthinkable two months ago (e.g. Germany ending the 'debt brake') are happening now.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago>Germany ending the 'debt brake') are happening now. Now what exactly they're goanna do with the extra debt is the question. More debt to fund innovation, infrastructure, defense, education and healthcare is welcome, but if it's just more debt to fund welfare and pensions, like Southern Europe, then nothing will improve.
- Tarsul 2y agoThey will change the paragraphs only wrt infrastructure, defense (and possibly climate things to get the votes of the greens). Meaning that the debt brake will still exist for all other things, basically. (but yes: creative bookkeeping will become easier ;))
- pjc50 2y agoIt's to fund re-armament.
- FirmwareBurner 2y agoThe other question is why did Germany/EU disarm in the first place when the US didn't, despite not living next-dorr to Russia?
- pjc50 2y agoThe US did disarm somewhat after the Cold War, but kept a lot in place for pork-barrel reasons and then the absolutely huge waste of money that was the War On Terror. People believed the "end of history" narratives about Russia, and even that it would become like the rest of the ex-communist states, a normal part of liberal Europe. That should have changed after 2014, but by then the grip of the financial crisis was preventing any increases in state spending.
- jimnotgym 2y agoOh I think a war with Russia would override those concerns!
- RobotToaster 2y agoMost people who voted for Brexit were mostly concerned about free movement of people, not goods. I doubt a free trade agreement would upset them too much. If the EU would accept a FTA without free movement of people is another matter.
- pjc50 2y ago> If the EU would accept a FTA without free movement of people is another matter. Absolutely not. This was made clear repeatedly. What became clear in the UK was that we'd rather lose market access in order to appease people with an irrational hatred of our fellow Europeans. If people think trade and movement boundaries are good, why don't we have internal ones? Why should Mancunians be allowed to take up scarce housing in London?
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y agoYou are correct. EU: "The free movement of goods is one of the four fundamental economic freedoms laid down in the EU founding treaties, the other three being the free movement of capital, services and people." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/free-movement-of-goods.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/free-mov... > "The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms" " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market The EU would welcome the UK being closer aligned to the EU, trade-wise. But the UK cannot be in the single market without all four freedoms. Which the UK still rules out.
- realityking 2y agoThe UK has a FTA with the EU. What they don’t have is access to the single market or a customs union.
- account42 2y agoYet those people are not at all concerned with free movement of non-European "refugees" now.